About Me

I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom.
I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated unidentified trolling will be deleted as spam.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

USA! We're Number...What?

USA! USA! USA!

We’re number one! Other than chanting, just what exactly we are number one at? Besides maybe concentration of wealth at the top and militarism, it’s a mystery to me. We are not number one in health care access for our people. We are not number one in upward mobility.

Maybe we’re number one in levels of incarceration of citizens.

Yes, we’ve all heard the rousing chants. From Nuremburg in 1933 to the famous Palin/McCain rallies of ’08, there’s nothing that gives the feeling of belonging, and sense of pride, more than patriotic chants at mass rallies. From celebrating the birth of the Third Reich to the feverish shrieks against the commie Muslim terrorist Obama, the power of pride swells the masses into ideological frenzy.

It is the herd mentality of the human species. We are very much like sheep and cattle in that sense. We are manipulated like herd animals to huddle in fear, take off our shoes, show our papers, scream out our version of the “two minute hate”, and lash out militarily by unscrupulous authoritarian leaders.

Apart from understanding the herd instinct of their followers, authoritarian leaders universally know something else. A free press is as much their enemy as democracy.

The Nazis had Goebbels, the Soviets had Pravda, and the American Right has talk radio and FOX(R). Their common purpose is the political indoctrination of the population.

Investigative reporters are the enemy. Journalism itself is a political target. The message must be controlled.

The founders clearly understood the need for a free press. It is at the top of the Bill of Rights, along with the right of the people to free speech and assembly.

But how is that “free press thingy” workin’ out for us?

The radical Right has been attacking it for decades as “liberal media”. They want the American people to listen to the unfiltered ideology of the Right, and to distrust corporate news reporting because of a fictional liberal bias. Trust the Party line, not your newspaper or broadcast news.

That’s bad enough for a democratic republic, but it gets worse.

The worse news is the quality of a free press in the US has fallen. According to Reporters Without Borders, in the Free Press Index for 2011 /2012 we share the level of 47th place in the world, with Argentina and Romania.

Who’s at the top of the list?

“This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom.”

Wouldn’t ya know? Those darn socialist countries with universal single payer health care did it again. It's gotta be a communist conspiracy!

So what happened to us? Why is our free press sinking in the former land of the free? Perhaps it is because we no longer have a strong democracy. We are a corporatocracy. Times have changed.

The article explains: “The United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalists covering Occupy Wall Street protests.”

In fact, much of the corporate media could barely contain its hostility toward the OWS protestors:

The front page of Rupert Murdoch's New York Post (11/4/11), urging a crackdown on Occupy Wall Street, proclaimed: "Enough! Mr. Mayor, It Is Time to Reclaim Zuccotti Park--and New York's Dignity."

CNN's Wolf Blitzer:On September 19: "Protests here in New York on Wall Street entering a third day. Should New Yorkers be worried at all about what's going on?"

Washington Post: November 16: "Is this an occupation or an infestation?"

"Can I help you?" an burly officer asked me, his helpfulness belied by his scowl.

"I'm a reporter," I told him.

"This is a frozen zone, all right?" he said, using a term I'd never heard before. "Just like them, you have to leave the area. If you do not, you will be subject to arrest."

By then, riot police were moving in, indiscriminately dousing the peaceful protesters with what looked like pepper spray or some sort of gas. As people yelled and screamed and cried, I tried to stay calm.

"I promise to leave once the arrests are done," I replied.

"No, you are going to leave now."

He grabbed my arm and began dragging me off. My shoes skidded across the park's slimy granite floor. All around me, zip-cuffed occupiers writhed on the ground beneath a fog of chemicals.

"I just want to witness what is going on here," I yelped.

"You can witness it with the rest of the press," he said. Which, of course, meant not witnessing it.

"Why are you excluding the press from observing this?" I asked.

"Because this is a frozen zone. It's a police action going on. You could be injured."

His meaning was clear. I let myself be hustled across the street to the press pen.

There is a famous republican and unsurprisingly moronic attitude that if anyone finds any fault whatsoever with America they assume that person must hate it. Republicans then begin demanding that person leave this perfect country.

Cool! I do not hate America, in fact unlike most conservatives who never served a day in the Armed Forced I wore the United States Army uniform for 21 years but I am looking into leaving the country.

See, I raised my hand to protect and defend the principles of liberty not some banal society who worships unprincipled capitalism and will sacrifice their freedom for a little security.

USA! USA! We’re 47th in freedom of the press.

So yeah, that bothers the hell out of me and it should anyone else with a fucking gram of commonsense.

To play Devil's Advocate, we are number one in that the rest of the world looks to us for economic and military concerns, the dollar itself, and sometimes as a paragon of freedom, regardless of the reality, whatever that may be.

I actually do think we are number one once all the math is done, but we are not perfect by any means and we have serious structural problems, such as a democracy that is more plutocratic than democratic.

Truth 101, you must have missed it: Dave converted me into an America-hating lefty like you. It's too much trouble to change my blog URL, but trust me, I'm now just as liberal as you.

As a result, I now completely agree with you that people on the right are fools. I can't believe they actually believe in free markets, individual responsibility, and limited government.

Don't they see -- as I do now -- that the federal government is the only entity that can guide our markets to perfection, creating a paradise of fairness? Government is responsible to take care of us; we can't do it ourselves. I've seen the light.

When I was on the right (yesterday), I believed our country was perfect and flawless. How silly of me. Dave has lifted the scales from my eyes and I see how truly evil our country is. Go Obama!

"...I never realized how awful this country really is. I think you just converted me to liberalism."

As Dave mentioned, "[b]lame the messenger, ignore and distract from the message", or, as you'd say, that's an ad hominem fallacy.

No, you're intrinsically incapable of being a liberal. You live solely through the mind, only through logical precepts, and lack consciousness and empathy. You're devoid of these attributes which, in essence, define progressiveness.

You're obviously an intelligent guy, but your intellect rules you, and apparently blinds you and keeps you from seeing truth and understanding.

Your last paragraph shook the roots of another fallacious attack, and reveals a sleazy attempt to hastily generalize.

in re: what truth said....the phrase that drives me nutz is "American Exceptionalism"...which can mean...anything, or nothing. But it does sound like a phrase that will rally crowds for mindless flag waving.

but to Dave's thought...H.L. Mencken said, "A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought would probably be unendurable." Mencken invokes a tremendous amount of sarcasm...of which he was noted, into that statement.

in essence...most Americans DO NOT want to think; Fox News is indicative of this. Reality TV shows are much the same. Mindless.Mencken also stated,with the same wryness..

"A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in." How True.

I do not know if we have a 'free' press anymore. Murdoch has shrunk it to the point where it is just junk advertising.

but, on a more positive note...Walter Lippman said,"“The theory of the free press is not that the truth will be presented completely or perfectly in any one instance, but that the truth will emerge from free discussion”

Beach,The elitists of the Right would have no standards at all if not for double standards. Mr. “Family Values” Gingrich personifies this.

Truth,For the Right, protest is only valid when it’s in the interests of the wealthy elites, or paints Obama as a Nazi witch doctor, or is against a woman’s right to her body. To criticize, question and protest inequality, or the wealth and power of the elite minority is unpatriotic, and therefore means we “hate America”.

John,The US is number one...on paper at least. The Bill of Rights is unmatched.

I love our democratic ideals. I love the fact FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and even Nixon left us a prospering nation, until the radical shift to the Right over the last thirty odd years.

I happen to love our Bill of Rights. But forces are tearing them apart. Once artificial entities like corporations are given the same rights as people, Actual human beings’ rights are diminished. Wealthy elites and corporations become ubermensch and super persons. The Fourth Reich has it new Master Race. Fascism is its inevitable course.

When I point to the threats we face, a Rightist concludes that I don’t like America. They are projecting and deflecting my criticism of them towards America. Pretty sleazy. Why? Because the Right is what’s wrong with America.

Thank you for playing “America’s Advocate”. One measure of where we stand in comparison to other nations is our level of happiness.

Alas! We are not the happiest country, I’m afraid. (Note to HR: This does not mean I hate America, or that I am unhappy. Believe it or not, I love America. And I’m a happy guy. Happily married, happily occupied, and happily free. Although my marriage is not threatened by the radical Right’s version of the dreaded “homosexual agenda”, our occupations and freedoms are imperiled by Right wing power.)

Back to happiness. According one survey, we Americans are not number one. We are tied with France, of all people, for 13th place, behind other cursed socialist countries.

Wow. Look at that spread on the table. We see plenty of your Right Wing false frames, dog whistles and propaganda points tossed out. “America-hating lefty, believe in free markets, individual responsibility, and limited government, government is the only entity that can guide our markets to perfection, creating a paradise of fairness, Government is responsible to take care of us; we can't do it ourselves. how truly evil our country is”

What, no blaming the “liberal media” this time? Can’t use ‘em all at once, I guess. Of course my post shattered that “liberal media” lie quite well I believe.

If only we actually believed what you say we do. If only the Right could be honest. But then, that would be impossible. Their prime directive of channeling wealth upwards and demolishing public services requires dishonesty over everything else in public discourse.

JG,Wouldn’t it be fun to show HR’s debate class some of his arguments?

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry–which provides at least 10 times as much energy–pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is ‘subsidized’

Exxon Mobil says it paid $3.1 billion in taxes in the United States -- more than even the $2.6 billion in profit it made selling oil and gas. To get to that number, the company includes the federal and state gasoline taxes that the company collects from drivers and passes on to government coffers. It also includes payroll taxes the company pays on behalf of its employees.

"They are counting taxes they don't pay," said Bob McIntyre, a director at Citizens for Tax Justice. "Payroll taxes are on the workers, sales taxes are on the consumers."

And how does that figure along with the $4 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for Big Oil?

This post is just another one of them leftwing Blame America First diatribes :)

You overlooked one other area where America is Number One: exporting Biblehumpers to the rest of the world. There was an article about this several years ago. Europe is being overrun with American snake-handlers who are trying to discredit science, logic and everything else "Christians" hate. Europe has plenty of Christians, but they manage to integrate science and religion into their lives without any imaginary conflict between the two. To a Fundamentalist, this is an intolerable situation.

of course, being able to converse in another language is, or can be construed, as an affront to American Exceptionalism. Just as we were so deeply offended by the French when the would not dump their economy into Iraq. America First. Whatever that means. USA USA

Anonymous,Which journalist did I compare to a Nazi? I know of only propagandists at FOX(R).

I know you love to equate MSNBC with FOX(R), but there's a difference. While both are arms of corporate media, FOX(R) is a political operation of the Right. They have zero programs hosted by a Democrat and no progressives regularly featured. MSNBC has a program hosted by a Republican and have several other Republicans on its payroll. Maybe you remember the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. What are the chances Howard Dean will be given a job at FOX(R)?

So much for "fair and balanced".

You present no argument that challenges my position.

The truth of my statement stands, and your radical Right Wing bias is showing.

As Colbert said, reality has a liberal bias. Reality must be distorted, and democracy suppressed, by the Right in order to expand the power and wealth of the elite minority.

That is the mission of American Right Wing "conservatism". You are their tool.

The larger danger of 'America #1' is that it instills an instinct in the general population that the USA can do no wrong;that all our actions as a nation are good,and just...and if mistakes were made....so what?

"We made too many wrong mistakes."Yogi Berra

We are presently at a cusp where the radical Right will not admit mistakes....and to concede that we need to change would be tantamount to admitting that mistakes were made. Hence, the propose that we make the same mistakes ... again.Progress?

Dave Dubya,My congrats on one of the most truth-filled posts I have ever read anywhere. Those who blindly continue this "USA! NUMBER 1!" chant are complacent and totally ignorant snobs. Reactionary power and influence has corrupted our government, media, and economics. Our tax system and income structure is way off base and favors the greedy rather than being based on merit or real achievement. We are no longer "the land of the free"---socially and institutionally, we have become far too rigid. Brilliant writing, Dave.

"Please give me some examples of the not so radical right. Define that so I can understand who you mean by radical."Gosh, I am impressed by your thirst for knowledge.For your first query, it infers that there are none who 'are not so radical right'. If you cannot think of any yourself, I must concede the point to you that there are none.

To your second point, boy... radical is not a hard concept. With a little concentration I do believe that you can discern...who YOU characterize as radical on the right. Of course, if you think that there are no moderates on the right, then they must all be radicals and you have answered your own question.

Thanks for your interest in my opinion &stuff.... but as a liberal I merely hope to help others. I hope I have been of help.

Here's another area where, unfortunately, the United States is number one. As disgusting and insane as it is, the Reich-Wingers love it! It's an aphrodisiac for them, better than any little blue pill or Spanish fly. It's their true drug of choice...

Dave, if you’ll indulge me for a moment, I have some advice. I don’t know if you’ve noticed how the tone of your site has shifted over the past few months. We all know that there are right-wing flamethrowers and left-wing flamethrowers out there, and when I first arrived on the scene you had apparently bridged the gap. It was nice to be a part of a thread where both left and right actively participated.

The flamethrowers are uninteresting – they attract other flamethrowers and comment threads quickly devolve into name calling and hyperbole. There are very few places where people from left and right actually discuss things together without devolving into personal attacks. That’s what Freedom Rants once was.

I’m sure it’s not just me, but have you noticed how much more vitriol is showing up in the comments? Have you noticed that those of us from the right comment less and less? Peppering comments with things like “Reich-wing” is a simple example of how far your site has fallen. If you look at your own comments, I think you’ve become part of the problem.

I’ve found in my short time in the blogosphere that the blog owner has a lot of influence on how good or bad the commenters behave. The titles and content of a post set the tone for the comments, as do the bloggers own comments. While I continue to read left-wing blogs, I comment on very few because the vitriol simply isn’t worth it (I know the flamethrowers on the right are just as bad, but they never aim at me, obviously). If you’re not careful, you’re going to let your blog become just like those.

Just in case you aren’t seeing it yourself, let me serve as your canary in the coalmine. Assume for a moment that I’m not one of the crazy right-wingers you hate so much; assume I’m an average Joe whom you generally respect. If what I’m saying is true and you don’t turn things around, Freedom Rants will jump the shark in 2012.

HR,Thanks for suggesting more civility and less "flame throwing". I agree with that sentiment. Maybe I need to go back to deleting the troll comments.

Seems some of us folks can't help fueling the flames.

Assume for a moment that I’m not one of the crazy right-wingers you hate so much

That’s Ok. I’ve done so myself.

For the record, again, I don't hate you. And I don't think you're crazy either. And I don't even hate crazy people. I hate the evil that men do. Believe it or not, I respect you for your input. For the most part, you are trying to reasonably present your views to a critical audience.

I would be unfair of me to deny someone the option of calling out the “Reich Wing” after they’ve been accused of being an America-hating commie. They are responding to very fascistic behavior. How is civil discussion possible after such vicious attacks? Liberals and progressives have been targeted and demonized like this for decades, and are quite fed up with it.

And what does this have to do with the subject of my post on the decline of American journalism? Where can civil discussion begin when one side insists on condemning journalism as "liberal media", and only their political party, FOX(R) and talk radio are truthful? Why is it impossible for the Right to admit most prominent media is corporate owned and has a corporate bias?

If you care to give fair and honest consideration of these matters, I promise to be polite and civil.

"Why is it impossible for the Right to admit most prominent media is corporate owned and has a corporate bias?"OKJIMM would like to point out your failure to use the the word "the" in the sentence above .

With that little bit of house cleaning out of the way. I feel that this blog began attacking anyone to the right of the looney left when questions were asked that you Dave and JG, and now OKJIM refused to address or answer.

Example my question "Please give me some examples of the not so radical right. Define that so I can understand who you mean by radical." What is bomb throwing about that question? But that simple question is treated that way.

Or this, DAVE you claim that Fox News is one of the most prominent media, that along with talk radio are corporate owned.

1. Fox CABLE New is #1 in CABLE news, but it's total viewership isn't any were near the numbers of the BROADCAST news programs by any one of these by themsleves, NBC,ABC,CBC. So where is the evidence to support your claim of most prominent?2. PBS isn't corp owned and it's talk radio. 3. If the lies of FOX and talk radio are so awful, then why doesn't some one on the left start their own non public funded left wing show, or even network?

And finally, "if the truth on is on the left", then why is the right always called "radical" by the left? Is that the truth about the right? Or just painting with a dirty paint brush by the left?

I think you are starting to blame any defeat of a liberal as a conspiracy and voter fraud or intimidation. YET you overlook the NOV 2010 election results that show a stunning defeat of liberalism by the voters.

People prefer a country with more freedom, hopefully one with a free press, right? Maybe even one with free speech for everyone, and not primarily for the wealthy and for corporations.

Your second point is a distraction and utterly irrelevant... unless you are suggesting those one-party, authoritarian countries had something in common, something more than preventing people from emigrating.

By taking my comment as a fresh excuse to label Just the Facts a troll, you've missed the entire point of my comment. Moderating or deleting comments won't fix the new tone that your blog has taken on. I'm afraid you've misdiagnosed the problem.

"For the record, again, I don't hate you."

I'm not worried about you hating me -- that's entirely irrelevant. I wanted you to know that I was being sincere irrespective of our ideological differences.

I realize now that I'm trying to change you (must be finding my feminine side) and I should just let you run your site however you like. If this is the environment you want, I should accept it or leave. Kind of like the U.S.A., I guess.

It's funny because you're saying this on a blog anyone can read in the United States.

It's not that you don't have free speech Dave, it's just that most people don't give a fuck what you have to say and don't value your point of view.

Not trying to be a dick here, you know what your hit count is. It's not like the world is beating down my blog's door either. But the truth is, people can say what ever they want. But you can't make anyone listen either.

HR,There you go again. Thank you. Instead of discussing the issue of my post, you continue to distract us by making it about me. Fine.

Free,Kudos for taking on the subject. You make a fine point man for your team. They need you.

They need you to divert from the context of my point on free speech as money, to something like a cheap blog.

Yeah, those Democrats have most certainly imposed their kind of tyranny on our free press, all right. They are guilty of political posturing on entertainment industry standards and celebrity behavior. Imagine that.

Here’s how the Big League does it:

First scare the recently terrorized people with stories of chemical weapons, nukular aluminum tubes, connections to al-Qaeda and mushroom clouds. Then intimidate and manipulate the press to regurgitate your false war-mongering claims. Then have corporate media stooges cancel the programs of those who question a war of choice.

Finally, tell the people exactly how to shut up.

"There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." – Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

Vote Republican and Welcome the Frozen Zone, Utopia for the cold-blooded elites.

Talk about misdirection Dave. You're the one that said you don't have free speech. So tell me, exactly what aren't you allowed to say... on this blog... to every person with an internet connection no less?

Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Zero.

It's not that you don't have the freedom to say whatever you want, it's just your mad very few people give a rats ass what you have to say. Hey I'm in the same boat man. It would be nice I guess if my blog had 5000 hits a day and I got a cool gig on TV as a talking head like Michelle Malkin and I wrote books that paid my rent.

The only thing stopping that isn't an evil government cabal or shadowy corporate elites. I'm just not that interesting. I can admit that, time you woke up to that too if you want to have a rational opinion.

Our demise in this area, as in many others, can be traced back to a public not well enough educated and engaged, and to a acceptance of notions that selfishness is OK, indeed inevitable. Greed is good. And, ours should be a nation of independent contractors who owe nothing to and have no responsibility toward their country or countrymen. It's everyone for him- or herself. Law of the jungle. Devil take the weak and slow, the young, the old and the ailing. The rich can rip off the rest with impunity.

The bitter elixir of hard-hitting investigative reporting is too unpalatable and difficult to digest. (Plus, it's too expensive to produce), so everything must be whittled down, dumbed down, whipped full of air and sweetened with that magic commercial ingredient, entertainment. As in infotainment.

The rich and corporations aren't the sole authors of our misery. Neither are sold-out, cynical pols, as terrible as many of them are.

Too many bad voting decisions of too many people, made on shallow, foolish, sometimes selfish and even perverse grounds — including decisions to not bother to vote — have brought us to where we are.

Our demise in this area, as in many others, can be traced back to a public not well enough educated and engaged, and to a acceptance of notions that selfishness is OK, indeed inevitable. Greed is good. And, ours should be a nation of independent contractors who owe nothing to and have no responsibility toward their country or countrymen. It's everyone for him- or herself. Law of the jungle. Devil take the weak and slow, the young, the old and the ailing. The rich can rip off the rest with impunity.

The bitter elixir of hard-hitting investigative reporting is too unpalatable and difficult to digest. (Plus, it's too expensive to produce), so everything must be whittled down, dumbed down, whipped full of air and sweetened with that magic commercial ingredient, entertainment. As in infotainment.

The rich and corporations aren't the sole authors of our misery. Neither are sold-out, cynical pols, as terrible as many of them are.

Too many bad voting decisions of too many people, made on shallow, foolish, sometimes selfish and even perverse grounds — including decisions to not bother to vote — have brought us to where we are.

Heathen, you made such an insincere appeal to Dave to restore civility to this blog that I just had to shake my head in disbelief. To take the high moral ground, from a person who personifies the worst when it comes to creating labels and intentional untruths, is certainly an interesting fallacy.

SW... great comment. re; Trolls... yes...Letter campaigns were quite the thing. Father Charles Coughlin, mixed hate radio, religion and instigated massive letter campaigns in the 30's. I guess my point was that never before could letter writers respond with each other in such a instantaneous manner. At least in the old days there was a greater level of editorial constraint that is not possible on the net.

to the point of corporate media and the demise of the "Free" press.... you just have to look at what News Corp, McClatchy, Gannett, to name just a few, own to understand that the slant has changed from a product of 'news' that attracted advertising, to one of advertising that we wrap in what can barely be called news. The adage of 'if it bleeds it leads' is still in place....but 'if it offends our advertisers, we do not print it.

My father was an advertising manager of a local paper....we used to get three dailys and two weeklies delivered to the home. We often discussed the drive that delivers circulation...in his opinion it was quality reporting. " "The better stories," he would relate, "just make my job easier."

I simply pointed out that no, you are not controlled. Fox puts out what it does because people like it. They want to hear it, same with its mirror MSNBC. They eat it up, they love it. Fox and MSNBC deliver a service people are happy to pay for.

We already clearly established people have 100% free speech in this country. I proved that, you didn't even try to refute it- because you are an example of it. So if people had a hunger for far left thought, and it wasn't being delivered by media, how come your blog doesn't have 4000 hits a day? Fox news gets 50 times that. Not Freedom Rants. It's not because anyone is preventing them from hearing your "message," people have heard it. They rejected it Dave. Other people like Michael Moore think like you and made a lot of money on movies... but in the end they aren't main stream not because of an evil conspiracy but because good old Johnny SixPack rejected it.

They like the Fox News better. It's not just number 1 in ratings, it's way number 1. By a lot.

So instead of asking yourself- "Gee, I wonder why that is?" you're here ranting about the evil power of big money. You never stopped to think Fox is as big time as it is; is people just like it. Michael Moore (or Freedom Rants)? Not nearly as much.

So let me get this straight. Michael Moore’s unparalleled success in documentary film making is not nearly “main stream”, but your fringe cult film “Atlas Shrugged” would be? Ha. Good one. Turns out most Americans want social safety nets, Medicare, better access to health care, a cleaner environment, regulated banks and Wall Street, and restoring higher taxes for the rich. Hmm. That puts you and your fellow radicals on the far Right fringe.

Ok, fallacy time. No, it is not about me. Missing the point is your first fallacy. When I said the message must be controlled, was I talking about my message? No, I was discussing journalism. You wanted to change the subject and make it about me.

Would you suggest there are no government and corporate filters on the flow of information? Would you say the Bush Administration had nothing to do with controlling the message before they started their war of choice?

My post is about the degrading of American journalism, of which FOX(R) is a prime example. Your pitch for FOX(R) as journalism is another fallacy, one we call the ad populum fallacy. This is like when the Earth was considered flat because most people agreed it was at one time. FOX(R) viewers and their “birthers” are the modern version of “flat Earthers”.

Despite the fact my post was about the state of a free press in the US, you wanted to deviate the discussion to general free speech. You said you “clearly established people have 100% free speech in this country”?

Does that include Phil Donahue’s opposition to Bush’s trumped up war? Does that include Zuccotti park protestors? Does that include Bill Maher’s “politically Incorrect”? Does that include the Wikileaks guy? Does that include my two cents compared to the elites’ millions of dollars in “free speech” money?

What a hypocritical statement for you to make about being called the loony left. Especially in light of my question to you and OKJIMM "Please give me some examples of the not so radical right. Define that so I can understand who you mean by radical."

It's ok for you to call conservatives radical, along with other names that I can provide for you but as Free0352, to be called loony brings out your indignation of been called a name and gets your panties in a wad.

Then there is JG announcing that he will not vote for OBAMA in NOV. I join him with my promise to do the same. Wanting to be opened minded I ask JG who he is voting for as I want to follow his superior leadership shown by is bravely announcing he was not voting for Obama. Crickets, that's all I hear in response.

Truth101, if this is correct "Fact is more people will watch an episode of Pawn Stars they've seen four times than will wath Fox News."Then why does the loony left have such a high fear of Fox News effecting the masses? If no one watches Fox News, then where are the "radical right" getting their talking points?

So let me get this straight. Michael Moore’s unparalleled success in documentary film making is not nearly “main stream”,

Not compared to Fox News. I think even he'd tell you that.

but your fringe cult film “Atlas Shrugged” would be?

No, never claimed Ayn Rand was all that main stream. Of course Atlas Shrugged IS one of the best selling books OF ALL TIME. But not as main stream as Fox News.

That puts you and your fellow radicals on the far Right fringe.

Well... compared to you dave Nomb Chomsky is on the far right fringe because he isn't a 9-11 truther.

As for polling numbers, good policy isn't a popularity contest. You see, when you talk economics, numbers count, not popularity. Your own life demonstrates this. For example, I bet it would be a popular idea around the old Dave Dubya house to buy a 100,000 square foot mansion... however your check book can't handle that. Hence, popular idea that won't work if you try it. Much like socialized medicine and other things you call a safety net and I call a safety hammock.

No, I was discussing journalism

Not that she's much of a journalist but please explain to me how... for example... Rachel Maddow is controlled by the government? Or Glenn Beck? Both are radical, both are very critical of the government, and neither are bothered by government.

Would you suggest there are no government and corporate filters on the flow of information?

There are no government filters. As for corporate ones, thats silly. Media companies are... duh... corporations. The NY Times is a corporation. So every time the editor does his job, duh... filter. I suppose if the journalist doesn't like it he can go out on his own. Lots have and do well.

Would you say the Bush Administration had nothing to do with controlling the message before they started their war of choice?

I seem to recall a never ending chorus of anti-bush media stuff from that time frame. Like universal except for perhaps Fox News. So, no.

This is like when the Earth was considered flat because most people agreed it was at one time. FOX(R) viewers and their “birthers” are the modern version of “flat Earthers”.

Either way (I'd say no, but either way) it's not because government censored anyone.

In fact, it sounds like YOU'D LIKE TO CENSOR PEOPLE to enforce your idea of what journalism should be.

Is that the case?

Does that include Phil Donahue’s opposition to Bush’s trumped up war? Does that include Zuccotti park protestors? Does that include Bill Maher’s “politically Incorrect”? Does that include the Wikileaks guy? Does that include my two cents compared to the elites’ millions of dollars in “free speech” money?

Yeah sure. Yes. The guy who runs Wikileaks doesn't live in America so he doesn't count. Nobody is bothering Bill Maher, or you for that matter.

See, funny thing about a free country, you have to put up with people you don't like. People for you like Fox News and people for me like Rachel Maddow.

At least you concur that your views are out of the mainstream and more people agree with me and Moore on the issues I provided, your diversionary rationalizations aside. Good.

Chomsky joke. Ha.

Glenn Beck is a journalist? You prove my point again.

You agree corporate media is corporate filtered. Good. You have also admitted what you are allowed to say is government filtered. Good. Thanks.

Reporters were threatened and denied access to the event they were reporting. That was both suppression of free speech, and suppression of a free press covering it. Those are facts, no matter what you say.

Wikileaks guy is under threat of losing his freedom, no matter if he’s American or not. That is still suppression of the press.

In case you missed it, Maher’s and Donahue’s shows were canceled because of corporate/government disapproval of their dissent for and criticism of war.

That was corporate/government suppression.

I seem to recall a never ending chorus of anti-bush media stuff from that time frame. Like universal except for perhaps Fox News

You mean like Chris “We’re all Neocons now” Mathews? There was no “chorus” and the few who disagreed were marginalized or silenced. See above for reality.

Pro-war voices outnumbered anti-war voices two to one throughout corporate media.

Your memory of the war fever is incredibly selective or impaired. Originally only a third of the country supported invading Iraq. After the propaganda blitz, only a third opposed it.

Who was it who said, “In war the first casualty is the truth”?

And that other anti-American hippie:

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” - James Madison

I thought I made it clear you are solidly outside the main stream yourself there bub. I can admit it, you're living in dream land. Hello guy, if Libertarians were all that main stream we'd have more candidates in office. I can admit this. Socialists on the other hand have to change their names ever so often. You know; from Socialist to Liberal to Progressive to ... well you get it. They have to hide, because when they put their platform out there it gets epically rejected. Libertarians on the other hand are honest, and we're doing better. Look at Ron Paul. He won't win, but he's selling the ideas very well, and lots of people are buying in. We don't have to lie.

You agree corporate media is corporate filtered. Good. You have also admitted what you are allowed to say is government filtered.

No. I do not agree. It is not government filtered in the least. As for "corporate filtered" welcome to the real world where reporters have to get paid, and be paid by private companies they have to make the boss happy who has to make the customers happy. This is called having a job. I know this concept is strange to Progressives but it's the way of the world.

Those are facts, no matter what you say.

No, those are gross oversimplifications.

OSW's for example have freedom to protest, but not the freedom to compromise the freedom of business to operate by blocking the entrance to the bank. This is common sense for us grown ups. You see, the freedom to swing your fist ends at other people's noses. People over the age of 9 called Libertarians/Conservatives learn this in grammar school.

That was corporate/government suppression.

Translation: Nobody wanted to watch Maher bloviate on TV and quit watching, so he lost his show. Somebody call human rights watch! A network exercised it's freedom to do what it wants with it's own network! In a true free society people like you Dave would TELL THEM what they have to put on the air. Yeah, thats freedom all right! Dave and progressive socialist comitties making decisions for everybody. YAY! We're all free now!

See above for reality.

Reality is something I've yet to encounter outside my own posts on this blog.

Originally only a third of the country supported invading Iraq. After the propaganda blitz, only a third opposed it.

Oh, so you admit the majority of our government and it's people wanted to invade Iraq. Thanks... ;)

Democracy in action I suppose. Course when you don't like it, it's oppressive and horrible. When it gives you free goodies on the other hand, you're a big fan.

Hypocrite.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” - James Madison

I like this one better

“Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.”

They (progressives) have to hide, because when they put their platform out there it gets epically rejected.

Wrong again. No. The country voted Obama into the White House no matter how much the wacko Right screeched about him being a socialist. That fact and the reality that most Americans want safety nets, public services and higher taxes for the rich has been established.

I’m delighted that you understand that significant difference. Credentials matter. Documentary film making and editing Mother Jones are both considered journalism. Right Wing talk shows are not.

Maddow had a Rhodes Scholarship to study political science at Oxford University. She completed an Oxford doctorate in politics and received the 2010 Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom award. Past recipients include Tom Brokaw, Larry King, and the late Peter Jennings.

In 2009 she was Nominated for "Outstanding Achievement in News and Information" by the Television Critics Association, the only cable news program accorded the honor.

Glenn Beck has no college degree.

Those are facts, no matter what you say.

No, those are gross oversimplifications.

Call them what you want. They are reality based facts. Free speech was suppressed and journalists covering the suppression were denied access and threatened with arrest. You are not entitled to your own facts, no matter how much you may think you are.

Translation: Nobody wanted to watch Maher bloviate on TV and quit watching, so he lost his show.

Wrong again. Maher and Donahue were canceled with high ratings. Corporate advertisers cowardly bent to the political pressure to withdraw sponsorship. They were deemed unpatriotic, here in the land of the free.

Looks like you still need to make it about me, or spin some more lies to distract from my post.

Maddow had a Rhodes Scholarship to study political science at Oxford University.

So only people who are qualified by liberal approved schools should be "allowed" to hold the title of "journalist."

Got it.

Corporate advertisers cowardly bent to the political pressure to withdraw sponsorship.

So what you're saying here, is these cowardly corporate sponsors just hated selling all their stuff to this wide audience and made darn sure nobody would see these people. Right. Dude, Johnny SixPack has no fucking clue who Rachel Maddow is. And he doesn't want to know. He wants NASCAR, professional "Wrestling" and HBO series about the mafia and WWII. That's what sells. HBO and any other network isn't in BUSINESS to deliver anything other than MONEY. They do that by enticing people to watch with stuff people like. The majority of people can tell you the latest details of what Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan are doing at any given second and can quote you an exact time of death for Witney Houston but couldn't for the life of them tell you who the Speaker of the House is or who chairs the Armed Services Comity. It's not a master plan for right wing puppeteers, people just don't give a fuck one way or the other.

I -unlike Glen Beck- DO have a degree in political science and have worked in politics. First thing you learn when you analyze polling data, people don't know, don't want to know, won't know and as long as it doesn't bother them don't care. Even otherwise really smart people.

This is how every election goes. If people think they are doing well, they will vote for the incumbent even if they're doing well in spite of said incumbent. If they are not doing well, they will take it out on the incumbent and fire him. They will justify why later. The goal of every political scientist is to devise ways to convince people given a limited amount of time (we call this exposure I.E. Soundbites) that either that their life sucks or their life is awesome. That's it. If the voter believes his life is good, he'll vote incumbent, if not he'll take it out on the incumbent no matter what. That is just how it goes with about 65% of voters.

Examples of these short little exposures.

LBJ's Countdown add

Ronald Reagan saying "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

GHBW saying "Read my lips"

Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid."

GWB "You are with us or against us."

Barack Obama "Hope and change."

In 2010 the Republicans might as well have said "Change it back" Clearly the voters were taking out their misfortune on the President, be it his fault or not. People understood it wasn't all his fault, but they hired him to fix it, he failed, so they punished him. That simple.

So in 2012 the question is this: If Barack Obama can convince people- "Hey it's bad, but without me it could have been way worse." people will vote for him.

If they remain unconvinced and instead go with the line I'm sure Mitt Romney is going to use "You hired him to fix this and instead he fucked up your insurance." they'll vote for Mitt.

Either way I could care less, because both are liberal douche bags anyway. It's like choosing between aids and brain cancer. Here's hoping Ron Paul wins a brokered convention.

"News, like healthcare, should not be a profit center." "And thus we have the cruel symptoms of the triumph of corporatocracy over democracy."

So what other industries do you think shouldn't be allowed to earn a profit? I ask because I'm looking for a job and I want to know what other industries you, as our new market overlords, have deemed acceptable.

Lets just say I value experience a lot more than education. It's like the "Good Will Hunting" quote. You could have saved yourself 100 grand for an over priced education with 20 dollars in late fees from the public library. I'm not a huge Glen Beck guy, I don't have cabal (don't want it) and I work whenever all the talk radio is on. But Beck is just as qualified to get on TV and bloviate as much as Maddow is. And Moore's soul qualification is he can get liberals to buy his films, which is enough for me.